F-35 - Not VTO?

[HF_Martini6]

Re: F-35 - Not VTO?

according to Jane's Military Reviews the X-35 Prototype was not capable of Vertical Take Offs only Short Take Offs as the British Harrier Jump Jet does.

That is why Lockheed Martin got the Job and they constructed 3 Pre-Production Planes for testing and Approval.

The F-35 "Navy" With shorter Wings so it could be stored on Air Carriers
The F-35 "Air Force" let's call this the standard Version
The F-35 "Marine corps." Equiped with a movable Jet and a additional "Propeller" style mechanism behind the cockpit for Vertical Take off and Landing

The entire Project was named "Joint Strike Fighter" because the DoD wanted one Plane for all 3 Divisions of the Armed Forces

[monkton]

Re: F-35 - Not VTO?

The full version of zone36's video is here

It's actually the X35B in testing. VTOL to hover, but no VTOL and rotation to level flight, because it's dangerous, uses too much fuel and too slow. They need to get off the deck fast.

Exactly - it CAN take off and hover vertically, but it CANNOT take off vertically and then move into level flight. Thus all of the official spec sheets saying that it has STOVL capabilities, rather than VTOL.

Again, F-35B can take off and hover vertically - but that would be pointless. It would only use STOVL capabilities on any mission it undertakes. None of the footage everyone keeps linking to shows an F-35B taking off vertically and rotating into level flight.

[Flares]

Re: F-35 - Not VTO?

Exactly - it CAN take off and hover vertically, but it CANNOT take off vertically and then move into level flight. Thus all of the official spec sheets saying that it has STOVL capabilities, rather than VTOL.

Again, F-35B can take off and hover vertically - but that would be pointless. It would only use STOVL capabilities on any mission it undertakes. None of the footage everyone keeps linking to shows an F-35B taking off vertically and rotating into level flight.

**** me, someone actually bothered to read my (factually correct and researched...) posts.

[monkton]

Re: F-35 - Not VTO?

Ha - yes, I couldn't take reading any more posts that continued to argue half-true theories when you'd already posted the correct answer

[IVfluids]

Re: F-35 - Not VTO?

FYI: VTO = vertical take-off.

So I'm sittin at home waiting for the dern server guys to finish their work so I can wrap up my network duties and I'm watchin the history channel.

They're doin a piece of how crappy the harrier is and they briefly talk about the F-35 JSF. They said "Although it does not have the capability of vertical take-off, it does have an impressive short take-off capability".

Pretty interesting eh? The F-35 can't take off verically IRL.

There are basically three versions of the F35, each are for different branches of the military, if I recall properly. One with VTOL, one with a shortened take off that I believe is called STOVL and one without any of that sh*t.

And now that I've said that, here is a link for info on it: http://www.jsf.mil/f35/f35_variants.htm

[Flares]

Re: F-35 - Not VTO?

Ha - yes, I couldn't take reading any more posts that continued to argue half-true theories when you'd already posted the correct answer

Thanks... IVFluids didn't bother...

[troybob]

Re: F-35 - Not VTO?

i still wouldn't consider "it can lift-off vertically but cannot transition to flight, it can only hover" to be true VTOL as vertical take-off for me includes the ability to transition into level flight. That (to me) is the difference between lift-off and take-off.

Anyone agree?

[raceacontari]

Re: F-35 - Not VTO?

They have made 3 versions. 1) F22 Raptor USAF 2) short take off model for US Navy and 3) VTOL model for USMC

[IVfluids]

Re: F-35 - Not VTO?

Thanks... IVFluids didn't bother...

No, I didn't bother, otherwise I'd have to read assnine replies, like yours.

I read the OP and reply. If I see something that is on the same page as my reply that catches my attention, I reply. Get over it. Otherwise just add me to your ignore list, it will make me inconsolabl, but I'll get over it in about five seconds.

[monkton]

Re: F-35 - Not VTO?

i still wouldn't consider "it can lift-off vertically but cannot transition to flight, it can only hover" to be true VTOL as vertical take-off for me includes the ability to transition into level flight. That (to me) is the difference between lift-off and take-off.

Anyone agree?

That's exactly what Flares, me, and a few others have been saying: THERE IS NO VTOL VERSION OF THE F35

[troybob]

Re: F-35 - Not VTO?

They have made 3 versions. 1) F22 Raptor USAF 2) short take off model for US Navy and 3) VTOL model for USMC

read up to see why you're (mostly) wrong

[Flares]

Re: F-35 - Not VTO?

No, I didn't bother, otherwise I'd have to read assnine replies, like yours.

I read the OP and reply. If I see something that is on the same page as my reply that catches my attention, I reply. Get over it. Otherwise just add me to your ignore list, it will make me inconsolabl, but I'll get over it in about five seconds.

Kid, calling someone "assnine" in response to a lighthearted dig is a little unnecessary. The fact you couldn't spell "asinine" correctly is ironic to say the least and ruins the credibility of that particular insult.
In the time you took to compose your misinformed post, and giving you the benefit of doubt by presuming you're more intelligent than you seem, you could've scanned the thread, found the correct information and not bothered posting.
Go back to the playground and pick on someone your own size.

That's exactly what Flares, me, and a few others have been saying: THERE IS NO VTOL VERSION OF THE F35

I think we're being ignored mate...

[troybob]

Re: F-35 - Not VTO?

I think we're being ignored mate...

i'm with you guys (since I'm the one starting the thread.

i think the problem is people only read my initial post and then instantly think "no, you're wrong - i've seen the videos, I know its a VTOL, even though no documentation (besides X-papers) say that it is. I'm SURE it is."

i mean - why would TV lie?

[Flares]

Re: F-35 - Not VTO?

Troybob.

i mean - why would TV lie?

Wha'?! You mean Fox News may be fibbers?!

The F35B *can* hover, it has to be able to decelerate to a hover and land, but it's unlikely anyone will see it take off vertically to a hover *and* rotate to flight as it does in BF2.

http://www.jsf.mil/

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/jsf/

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/jsf.htm

http://www.jsf.org.uk/jsfuk.htm

http://www.strategypage.com/messageboards/messages/6-20847.asp

http://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/jsf.html

There's enough information above about the F35 variants to keep the geeks, starry eyed plane spotters and wannabe pilots happy. :)

[troybob]

Re: F-35 - Not VTO?

Troybob.

The F35B *can* hover, it has to be able to decelerate to a hover and land, but it's unlikely anyone will see it take off vertically to a hover and rotate to flight as it does in BF2.

maybe i should've mentioned it in my first post, i am aware that the F-35 is capable of Vertical Landing (STOVL)